Talk:Battle of Tskhinvali/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Incorrect !!!

The number of Georgian losses are incorrect. Thats the numbers of Georgia, not seriously source ! Typical western Wikipedia Mhh you can write down that russia attacks at first ! Thats the same because you can read that on the official Page of Georgia.

Please give your numbers with sources, go google for it. Post here, discuss, agree on them, and then post to the article. Be bold, do some work too. FeelSunny (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The number of russian casulties are absolutly incorrect. Because they at least lost more than 2 times more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.43.176 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced additions

In this edit, a lot of information was added (and subsequently got reverted by another editor). Please note that the war and all matters surounding it are highly controversial and subject to intense POV critisism. If you want to add information, try to always source each and every part of it, else it will very likely be reverted by others. --Xeeron (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

commanders

Right now it looks Mamuka Kurashvili was the only G-n commander in Tskhinvali. We should add names of the others.FeelSunny (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Artlleriy Onslaught"

This "Onslaught" didn't cause more than 100 civilian death, according to latest official UN and UNESCO statistics. Even Russia extremly reduced their figures of nearly 1500 - 2000 dead ossetians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.43.176 (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Another cool cavalry attack from an unsigned user... Here is one of a huge number of sources for such a wording: "on the night Saakashvili’s troops mounted an onslaught on Tskhinvali in which scores of civilians and Russian peacekeepers died." from TimesOnline [1], which is hardly pro-Russian.

In case you think that the onslaught "didn't cause more than 100 civilian death", you should go and consult sources given in the article. Here is a list of dead people found in Tskhinvali, whose names were found. It includes 365 names: [2]FeelSunny (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

365 are still not 2000 !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.51.146 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

365 out of 10,000 would qualify as extreme artillery onslaught. That's 3.65%! It's not like there were 40,000 residents in Tskhinval during the attack. Most left. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Casualties

I removed the following sentence for now: "According to a Russian military analyst, Nikita Petrov, Russian forces sustained the greatest casualties of the war, during the first hours of the Georgian operation."

In the source it says "Those who fought in the South Caucasus in the five-day conflict from Aug. 8-12 know that Russian forces sustained the greatest casualties during the first hours of the Georgian aggression because Moscow and the North Ossetian capital of Vladikavkaz, where the 58th Army's headquarters is located, failed to promptly order troops to repel the attack and to send elements of the 58th Army to South Ossetia.", note the lack of "of the war". It can also be read as "the greatest part of the casualties of the first hours are due to ...". Some evidence for this reading is the fact that 13 deads is a small amount compared to the total Russian casualties. --Xeeron (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

So there is an overall casulty rate for 1:4 for Georgia with the most dead for the GAF compared to Russia, although they had total disadvantage in air. So, theoratically, if there was no air superiority, the Russians would hardly push the Georgians back by infantry and armor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.75.209 (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Irregulars

Why does this article say nothing of the irregular volunteers mercenaries and othersw ho participated in this conflict. Thousands of Ossetian, Cossack, and Chechen volunteers and militiamen went to South Ossetia around this time. Many of them fought in and around Tskhinval before Russian Army even got there! This should really be mentioned, at least. --SergeiXXX (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why, they didn't really succeded anywhere against the advancing Georgian Forces. The main opposing force was the Russian Army which was able to push back the GAF with help of air supperiority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.196.39.76 (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not true. The volunteers helped repeal two initial attempts by the Georgians to enter the city. And afterward, when the Georgians were in retreat, many of the irregulars followed the Russian Army into Georgia proper... It needs to be mentioned. Some 10 to 15 thousand North Ossetians, 4,000 (mostly Terek) Cossacks, others too, Chechens... It is significant. A great contribution. --SergeiXXX (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is has a name: Sources. To add this to the article, you need to bring credible sources about this happening. We can't add something without sourcing it. --Xeeron (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Battle of Tskhinvali

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Battle of Tskhinvali's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "eu_report2":

• From 2008 South Ossetia war: "EU report, volume II" (PDF). Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. 2009-09-30. Retrieved 2009-09-30.
• From Heidi Tagliavini: "Final report, volume II" (PDF). Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia. 2009-09-30. Retrieved 2009-09-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry AnomieBOT, you might just be a non-sentinent computer program, but I sure love your work. =) --Xeeron (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Citing the EU report (page numbers)

This is a problem not only here, but also in all related articles that cite the EU report (and some other, lengthy, sources). On the one hand, it would be nice to combine all citations into one reference (using "ref name") to avoid very long reference lists. On the other hand, when citing from reports several hundreds of pages long, the page number is needed, or it becomes extremely burdensome for other editors to check the reference. I did not find any established procedure for dealing with the problem.

One way would be to simply accept very long reference lists and make a single citation for each page. Another idea would be to use the same named reference everywhere and add the page name commented out, so it can be seen while editing. Other ideas? --Xeeron (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the system I used ("further reading" + named page number refs) is the best. It is used in other articles as well: [3]. Offliner (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Expansion and rewrite

I have expanded and rewritten the article. My main goals were to

1. Add new info from the EU report
2. Add info from the main article (this article is supposed to be more extensive than the corresponding section in the main article)
3. Improve readability and organization
4. Insert a summary of the events to the lead

I hope you will agree that the article is much better now. One thing I would still like to do is to add info from other (academic) sources about the military events. Offliner (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In general, I like it. The casualties section was and is still problematic (lots of unsourced statements, most numbers were for South Ossetia as a whole not only the city). It needs more up to date sources. I am also unsure about the Trivia section. While in general, they serve to "lighten up" the article, I find it out of place here. If there ever is an article about the Tskhinvali prison, or the South Ossetian justice system, it might be useful there, but it should be removed here. --Xeeron (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and there is also the issue with all the broken citations, but I am hoping for some friendly bot to pass by and restore them. --Xeeron (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The casualties section needs to be fixed (or perhaps removed?) The prison episode seems completely out of place in this article, but I've seen similar "interesting but not really important" details being mentioned in other military history articles. Offliner (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The last part of the casualties section (military losses) should be moved into the infobox, as is standard in military articles. The first part (civilian losses and destruction) does not belong in the infobox. I see three options:

1. Keeping it were it is and expanding it with proper sources
2. Refer the reader to Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war
3. Merge the info into the main part of the article

No 3 would be the cleanest, but at the moment, I don't see where it could be inserted without breaking the flow of the story. --Xeeron (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also tried to insert more exact info from the Georgian and Russian timelines in Vol III. This is difficult because of the obvious POV issues. It also makes the article less readable if there are several conflicting informations and if we have to attribute everything. But still I think it's nice to have some exact info about things like exact timing and which troops were involved. Offliner (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronology problems

The first few chapters a relatively problem free regarding the chronology. For example, it is undisputed, that the artillery shelling started at 23:35. Both Georgian and Russian timelines say that the Georgian forces entered Tshkinvali around 06:00 on 8 Aug (South Ossetians disagree, however). But now it becomes problematic. According to Georgia, the Russian air force made its first bombing in Georgia around 09:00. The Russian timeline does not say when the bombings started (probably they are implying it started after 14:30.) Also, according to Russia the first regular troops entered South Ossetia at 14:30, but here the Georgian timeline is completely different. I'd like to find a nice, readable way of solving this problem. One solution is that we don't mention exact times at all (we could say, for example, that "first Russian regular troops entered South Ossetia between morning and afternoon of 8 August"). Another solution is to simply give alternative times. Yet another solution is to take a look at several sources and see what the majority thinks. For example, I think it's pretty clear that Russian bombings started in the morning of 8 August, as this is what most of the sources say. Perhaps we could report this as a fact? Offliner (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the timing at the first day (who shot first at which time? when did the Russians cross the border?), I believe there is not much to worry about in terms of POV concerns. Does it really matter for either side, whether something happened on the second day or the third? I think not. In those cases, if there are conflicting reports, we should simply be less precise (e.g. "during the next days", instead of "August 11 according to Russia, August 12 according to Georgia").

If possible, the whole "first day" controversy should also be kept as short as possible here and relegated to the main article. I know this is not entirely possible, since it makes a difference when the main Russian troops arrived at the battle field, but in general, it is not very important for the battle. So best to keep that matter as far as possible from this article. --Xeeron (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

GMT or local time?

I always thought times like 23:35 mentioned in the sources were given in GMT. But actually, everything seems to be in local time (GMT+4). I'd suggest we use local time in this article as well, since +4 is pretty much and the difference between night and dawn is important regarding the military aspect. Offliner (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should definitely use local time. --Xeeron (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Strictly chronological or thematical order?

Should we describe the events in strictly chronological order, or should we group similar events (such as air operations) to separate chapters (like we are doing now)? I believe the latter solution is probably better, although it does create some confusion. Perhaps we should create a separate timeline for those readers, who want to see everything in strict chronological order, like this: User:Offliner/Tskhinvali timeline. Any opinions? Offliner (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. As far as I see, only the air operations section is not chronological. All others fit one behind the other. While the article should definitely not look like a bullet point time line, chronological order is the natural choice for me. --Xeeron (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review

I have opened a WP:MILHIST peer review for the article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Tskhinvali. Please give comments and suggestions there. Offliner (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

About Air Operations Part

I don't like editing pages without hearing people's opinions. I would like to critize two things.

1, "Due to the lack of night-vision equipment, it mostly operated during daytime, while the Georgian Air Force was able to operate at night as well." This statement, in my opinion, is nothing but BS and its amusing. Georgian Airforce operates Su-25s which are from Soviet air force. These aircraft are now modernized by Sukhoi, a Russian company. Now some one tell me, how can Georgians operate in night time with 10 combat aircraft and Russians cant? Over 1000 aircraft, (some (like Su-34) are brand new, latest in Russian technology) and none can fly at night?

2, "However, according to CAST, Russia never gained air superiority in the South Ossetian theatre, as the Russian Air Force took early losses (3 Su-25s) to Georgian anti-aircraft fire, and was forced to stop making sorties for the rest of the battle."

There is also a similar statement in "south ossetia war" article. The CAST's statement does not say anything about Russian air operations were halted becouse of losses. From a tactical point of view (IMO) it may just be halted to avoid friendly fire as both sides are using identical equipment. Unless its proven, saying "Georgians forced Russians to stop" is POV of a Georgian and should be removed.

edit: a CAST comment "http://www.cast.ru/eng/comments/?id=358" says "Russian air losses were concentrated in the period 8-9 August, with August 9 witnessing the heaviest losses of four aircraft, and that of the six aircraft lost, over half were the result of friendly fire. While this analysis reduces the effectiveness of the Georgian air defense system, it raises serious questions about the ability of Russian air control systems to manage the airspace of the battlefield"

Andraxxus, 78.161.23.94 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, and the courtesy to discuss the changes prior to making them, I only wish that more editors would do that!

1. Elbit Systems, and Israeli military industrial complex corporation, upgraded the Su-25s, http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-45675.html, giving them night vision.

2. You are correct, this is B/S, as the Russian flew 28 sorties on August 9th, http://cast.ru/files/the_tanks_of_august_sm.pdf, in comparison with 63 sorties on August 8th. Overall in the war the Russian flew over 150 sorties. And Russian MiG-29s patrolled the area and prevented Georgian Su-25s from giving support to their infantry, which helped the South Ossetian forces and Russian Peacekeepers to hold out until the Russian reenforcements arrived. And that is misstated, as an update of cast, which some editors like to pretend isn't the update, despite the fact that it is written by the same author, with more information, a year later. The Russian lost 2 Su-24s, one of August 9th, the other on August 11th, (with 3/4 pilots surviving), and the biggest loss was the Tu-22, on August 9th. However the Tu-22 was lost because it descended from 16,000 meters to 4,000 meters, for unknown reasons, not because of a problem with the plane. The Russians also lost 3 Su-25s to friendly fire, and 3 more were damaged beyond repair, but only one Su-25 pilot was killed. Aside from the loss of the Tu-22, due to a moron/traitor giving out that order, the Russians only lost two skilled pilots, as per planes, Russia can afford to lose them. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Well I didn't know that to be honest. Anyway, Russians still have enough (more than Georgia) Night Vision-equipped attack fighters to operate in an area that small. (Russian Su-25s with T, TM and SM variants for example)

2. Your English seems better than mine. Care to edit the part when you have time? 78.161.23.94 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)